SRI RAVINDRA SHETTY @ RAVI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55815
CRL.P No. 994 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010038792025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 994 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVINDRA SHETTY @ RAVI,
S/O D J KITTANNA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT JATHI HOUSE, BARIPADAVU POST,
BAYARU GRAMA, KASARAGOD,
KERALA STATE.
OFFICE AT CHIG ASSOCIATION SHOP,
NO.22, 1ST FLOOR,
KERALA SAMAJAM BUILDING KSR ROAD,
MANGALURU CITY.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANGALORE NORTH PS,
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU.
2. NITHIN K,
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT KONEMAJALU MANE,
K C FARM POST, KOILA VILLAGE,
KADABA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA.
3. PAVAN KUMAR B,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT MANILA VILLAGE,
BANATWALA TALUK,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55815
CRL.P No. 994 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010038792025
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
4. RAKSHITH K,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT KONEMAJALU MANE,
K C FARM POST, KOILA VILLAGE,
KADABA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS CRIME NO. 40/2023
REGISTERED BY MANGALORE NORHT PS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
J.M.F.C (II COURT), MANGALORE, D.K, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 420 OF IPC AND U/S 10 AND 24 OF IMMIGRATION
ACT, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
"a) To quash entire proceedings in Crime No.40/2023
registered by Mangalore North PS, pending on the file
J.M.F.C (II Court), Mangalore, D.K, for the offences
P/U/S. 420 of IPC and U/S 10 and 24 of Immigration
Act, as against the Petitioner in the interest of justice
and equity.
b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interests of justice."
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55815
CRL.P No. 994 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010038792025
2. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 lodged a complaint on
01.06.2023, pursuant to which Mangaluru North
Police registered Crime No. 40/2023 for offences
under Sections 10 and 24 of the Immigration Act,
1983, and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The complaint alleges that the petitioner, who was
running a placement agency, promised respondents
Nos. 2 to 4 employment in Malaysia and demanded
₹1,20,000/- from each of them. Each complainant
allegedly paid ₹1,00,000/- by cheque and ₹20,000/-
in cash. Though the petitioner arranged their travel
tickets and they travelled to Malaysia, the
employment provided allegedly did not carry the
promised facilities. They were required to work for 17
hours a day without the facilities assured to them.
Consequently, they approached the Indian Embassy
in Malaysia, which arranged their return to India at
their own expense. The petitioner is therefore
accused of obtaining a total sum of ₹3,60,000/- by
making false representations regarding the nature of
employment and the facilities available.
4. The complaint further alleges that several other
persons have suffered similar experiences at the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55815
CRL.P No. 994 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010038792025
hands of the petitioner. These allegations also
require investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has discharged his obligations by arranging
tickets and securing employment for respondents
Nos. 2 to 4 in Malaysia. According to him, any
grievance regarding the nature of employment or the
facilities provided is a dispute between the
complainants and their employer in Malaysia. He
therefore submits that no offence is made out
against the petitioner and seeks quashing of the
proceedings.
6. Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Kethan Kumar, learned counsel for
respondents Nos. 2 to 4, and the learned HCGP for
respondent No. 1. Perused the papers.
7. The allegations against the petitioner concern the
promises allegedly made before he received
₹1,20,000/- from each of the complainants. The
complaint specifically alleges misrepresentation
regarding the nature of employment and the facilities
available in Malaysia. In these circumstances, this
Court cannot accept, at this stage, the petitioner's
contention that the dispute is confined to the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55815
CRL.P No. 994 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010038792025
complainants and their employer. The nature of the
promises made by the petitioner, the circumstances
in which the amounts were received, and whether
those promises were fulfilled require investigation.
8. The power to quash criminal proceedings is to be
exercised sparingly. At this stage, the Court must
examine whether the allegations in the complaint,
taken at face value, disclose the commission of the
offences alleged. The Court cannot conduct a mini-
trial or assess the sufficiency of the evidence while
considering a petition for quashing.
9. Insofar as the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is
concerned, the complaint alleges that the petitioner
made representations regarding the nature of
employment and the facilities available in Malaysia,
induced respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to pay ₹1,20,000/-
each, and thereafter failed to provide the
employment conditions promised. These allegations
concern the representations allegedly made before
the amounts were received. Whether the petitioner
made false representations with the dishonest
intention of inducing the complainants to part with
their money is a matter requiring investigation. The
petitioner's contention that he arranged tickets and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55815
CRL.P No. 994 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010038792025
employment does not, by itself, negate the allegation
of cheating.
10. Insofar as the offences under Sections 10 and 24 of
the Immigration Act, 1983, are concerned, the
allegations at present disclose the specific acts
constituting the offences under those provisions.
11. In the present case, the complaint alleges that the
petitioner operated a placement agency, made
promises regarding employment in Malaysia,
received money from respondents Nos. 2 to 4, and
arranged their travel. The allegations regarding the
representations made and the amounts received
prima facie warrant investigation into the offence of
cheating.
12. At this stage, this Court cannot quash the
proceedings merely on the petitioner's assertion that
he only arranged tickets and employment and that
the dispute is essentially between the complainants
and their employer. The investigating agency must
examine the allegations and collect the necessary
material. It may also investigate the role of the
employer in Malaysia, subject to obtaining the
requisite permission and following the procedure
prescribed by law, or inform the concerned
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55815
CRL.P No. 994 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010038792025
authorities in Malaysia about the allegations made so
as to enable the competent authorities to take
necessary action, if so required and deemed fit.
13. In these circumstances, the petitioner has not made
out a ground for quashing the proceedings at the FIR
stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The
investigating agency shall proceed in accordance with
law. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all
permissible defences at the appropriate stage.
14. In that view of the matter this Court passes the
following:
ORDER
dismissed
i) Criminal petition stands .
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
KTY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13